the costs of hiring local tradesmen, who will suddenly learn that they
no longer work in a "cash business."

And why shouldn't they have to pay taxes like we do??

On May 12, 5:56*pm, (BRUCE) wrote:
the costs of hiring local tradesmen, who will suddenly learn that they
no longer work in a "cash business."

And why shouldn't they have to pay taxes like we do??

They absolutely should pay taxes just like the rest of us. The real
issue is why we are to be forced to report to the government on our
purchases from each and every contractor or tradesman that we use.
That is forcing additional fees on us to report to the government on
what someone else earns. That entails a substantial amount of
additional time and expense to obtain and maintain the information as
well as send the reports to both the tradesman and the government.
Just another straw on the back of business.

Supposing there is a contractor who does cash business. And
another one who pays taxes. Here's how the two scenarios
play out:

Contractor one. Cash business. Charges $100 for the job. He
uses the money to buy highly taxed fuel for his truck, and
then stops on the way home to buy food for his family. He
stops by the department store to buy some toys for his kids,
and supports local business. Your job is done the next day.

Contractor two. Pays his taxes. He can't do the job for
$100. He has to charge $130. Part of the extra money goes to
pay the book keeper at the office, who fills out all the
government forms. He pays income tax on the money that he
takes home, which means that about $30 ou tof the $100 you
paid him goes to the state and fed. And then he "pays
taxes" by charging you $10.40 in sales tax, which the state
requires. He turns that money over to government. Which
means that your $100 job is now up to $140.40. There is an
insurance surcharge, and a government paper work handling
surcharge. So, the job is up to about $160 now. Meantime,
the local department store is laying off workers, becuase
Mr. Contractor isn't buying toys and videos for his kids any
more. So much of the job is going to pay taxes.

The state hires two more code enforcement workers, whose job
it is to call Mr. Contractor into the office, and go over
his books. Now, there will be a 5 day delay before he can
start the job. Because he and his book keeper will be in the
audit office. Meantime, your roof is leaking, and a lot of
stuff is water damaged while the contractor is in the audit
office.

I hope you feel better, knowing that the contractor pays his
fair share. By the way, he pays it by adding to the cost of
your job.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"BobR" wrote in message
...

And why shouldn't they have to pay taxes like we do??

They absolutely should pay taxes just like the rest of us.

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:






The state hires two more code enforcement workers, whose job
it is to call Mr. Contractor into the office, and go over
his books. Now, there will be a 5 day delay before he can
start the job. Because he and his book keeper will be in the
audit office. Meantime, your roof is leaking, and a lot of
stuff is water damaged while the contractor is in the audit
office.

I hope you feel better, knowing that the contractor pays his
fair share. By the way, he pays it by adding to the cost of
your job.

Of course I am also paying an added cost for Contractor 1 because
someone has to make up the taxes that he ain't paying. And Contractor 1
puts the job off for 3 to 5 while he serves time for tax evasion or has
to up the cost of the job to pay for penalties and interest to keep his
butt out of jail. I feel much better for the guy who is paying the taxes.
Of course, this is a debate completely separate from whether the
taxes themselves are a good thing.

--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."

--PJ O'Rourke

Of course I am also paying an added cost for
Contractor 1 because
someone has to make up the taxes that he ain't paying.

CY: I disagree. I know of no department that says "Well,
Contractor 1 should have collected $72 in taxes from that
consumer, so we'll have to increase the other guys taxes
that much". My view is that government expands faster than
the rate of tax increase. So, I do what I can to encourage
people to pay less taxes.

And Contractor 1
puts the job off for 3 to 5 while he serves time for tax
evasion or has
to up the cost of the job to pay for penalties and interest
to keep his
butt out of jail. I feel much better for the guy who is
paying the taxes.

CY: No problem. Find a different contractor.

Of course, this is a debate completely separate from
whether the
taxes themselves are a good thing.

CY: We could add the "good thing" discussion, if you wish.

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Of course I am also paying an added cost for
Contractor 1 because
someone has to make up the taxes that he ain't paying.

CY: I disagree. I know of no department that says "Well,
Contractor 1 should have collected $72 in taxes from that
consumer, so we'll have to increase the other guys taxes
that much". My view is that government expands faster than
the rate of tax increase. So, I do what I can to encourage
people to pay less taxes.


All of them do exactly that in practice and in theory. They
base their alleged budgets on what they think is coming in. To the
extent that others don't pay, the shortfall has to be made up somewhere
and that is through higher taxes (or more money printed which is
essentially the same thing). As you pointed out, you are advocating the
punishment of the person who person who obeys the law.
Just out of personal curiosity (real honest question). How do you
feel about illegal aliens being used by contractors?



Of course, this is a debate completely separate from
whether the
taxes themselves are a good thing.

CY: We could add the "good thing" discussion, if you wish.
I was trying my best to avoid it, which is why I separated it (g).

--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."

--PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Supposing there is a contractor who does cash business. And
another one who pays taxes. Here's how the two scenarios
play out:

Contractor one. Cash business. Charges $100 for the job. He
uses the money to buy highly taxed fuel for his truck, and
then stops on the way home to buy food for his family. He
stops by the department store to buy some toys for his kids,
and supports local business. Your job is done the next day.

Contractor two. Pays his taxes. He can't do the job for
$100. He has to charge $130. Part of the extra money goes to
pay the book keeper at the office, who fills out all the
government forms. He pays income tax on the money that he
takes home, which means that about $30 ou tof the $100 you
paid him goes to the state and fed. And then he "pays
taxes" by charging you $10.40 in sales tax, which the state
requires. He turns that money over to government. Which
means that your $100 job is now up to $140.40. There is an
insurance surcharge, and a government paper work handling
surcharge. So, the job is up to about $160 now. Meantime,
the local department store is laying off workers, becuase
Mr. Contractor isn't buying toys and videos for his kids any
more. So much of the job is going to pay taxes.

The state hires two more code enforcement workers, whose job
it is to call Mr. Contractor into the office, and go over
his books. Now, there will be a 5 day delay before he can
start the job. Because he and his book keeper will be in the
audit office. Meantime, your roof is leaking, and a lot of
stuff is water damaged while the contractor is in the audit
office.

I hope you feel better, knowing that the contractor pays his
fair share. By the way, he pays it by adding to the cost of
your job.

I'll forward your comments to the IRS for review, Chris. I imagine
they'll say it's fine for you to not pay taxes, since in your
magnanimity you're saving your customers so much money.

On May 13, 6:07*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Supposing there is a contractor who does cash business. And
another one who pays taxes. Here's how the two scenarios
play out:

Contractor one. Cash business. Charges $100 for the job. He
uses the money to buy highly taxed fuel for his truck, and
then stops on the way home to buy food for his family. He
stops by the department store to buy some toys for his kids,
and supports local business. Your job is done the next day.

Contractor two. Pays his taxes. He can't do the job for
$100. He has to charge $130. Part of the extra money goes to
pay the book keeper at the office, who fills out all the
government forms. He pays income tax on the money that he
takes home, which means that about $30 ou tof the $100 you
paid him goes to the state and fed. *And then he "pays
taxes" by charging you $10.40 in sales tax, which the state
requires. He turns that money over to government. Which
means that your $100 job is now up to $140.40. There is an
insurance surcharge, and a government paper work handling
surcharge. So, the job is up to about $160 now. Meantime,
the local department store is laying off workers, becuase
Mr. Contractor isn't buying toys and videos for his kids any
more. So much of the job is going to pay taxes.

The state hires two more code enforcement workers, whose job
it is to call Mr. Contractor into the office, and go over
his books. Now, there will be a 5 day delay before he can
start the job. Because he and his book keeper will be in the
audit office. Meantime, your roof is leaking, and a lot of
stuff is water damaged while the contractor is in the audit
office.

I hope you feel better, knowing that the contractor pays his
fair share. By the way, he pays it by adding to the cost of
your job.


SO? Should I feel better that my taxes would have to be higher still
should all contractors be like the first and choose to not report the
income and pair their fair share of the taxes?

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Supposing there is a contractor who does cash business. And
another one who pays taxes. Here's how the two scenarios
play out:

Contractor one. Cash business. Charges $100 for the job. He
uses the money to buy highly taxed fuel for his truck, and
then stops on the way home to buy food for his family. He
stops by the department store to buy some toys for his kids,
and supports local business. Your job is done the next day.

Contractor two. Pays his taxes. He can't do the job for
$100. He has to charge $130. Part of the extra money goes to
pay the book keeper at the office, who fills out all the
government forms. He pays income tax on the money that he
takes home, which means that about $30 ou tof the $100 you
paid him goes to the state and fed. And then he "pays
taxes" by charging you $10.40 in sales tax, which the state
requires. He turns that money over to government. Which
means that your $100 job is now up to $140.40. There is an
insurance surcharge, and a government paper work handling
surcharge. So, the job is up to about $160 now. Meantime,
the local department store is laying off workers, becuase
Mr. Contractor isn't buying toys and videos for his kids any
more. So much of the job is going to pay taxes.

The state hires two more code enforcement workers, whose job
it is to call Mr. Contractor into the office, and go over
his books. Now, there will be a 5 day delay before he can
start the job. Because he and his book keeper will be in the
audit office. Meantime, your roof is leaking, and a lot of
stuff is water damaged while the contractor is in the audit
office.

I hope you feel better, knowing that the contractor pays his
fair share. By the way, he pays it by adding to the cost of
your job.

So whats your point? Taxes are typically paid by adding a cost to
something. Your argument is also completely ridiculous that a tax cheat
is somehow more efficient than one who pays taxes. Contractor one is a
tax cheat no matter how you rationalize it.

If you don't want to pay taxes then you have something called a vote. It
gives us the ability to fire politicians. Unfortunately most people are
busy watching American idol or twittering or whatever to get involved..

I'd like to see all the border jumping criminals
fingerprinted, packed up, and dumped across the border. The
second time they come back, they spend six weeks in
solitary, being fed bread and water. And then dumped over
the border. Each further offense results in six more weeks
of solitary. I'd like to see all crimes committed by non
citizens punished with double sentences. In a Sherriff Joe
type prison camp.

I have little sympathy for people who don't respect our
nation.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
Just out of personal curiosity (real honest question).
How do you
feel about illegal aliens being used by contractors?

You have been duped by the assumption that there is some
"number of dollars" the govt needs. I believe that govt
spends about 1.2 to 1.5 times what it takes in.

One person failing to pay taxes doesn't necessarily mean
that someone else has to pay more. It just means that the
govt has less of our money.

How many times have you been audited. And the auditor says
"the contractor on the other side of town did a cash job, so
I'm adding $50 to your assessment."

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"BobR" wrote in message
...

SO? Should I feel better that my taxes would have to be
higher still
should all contractors be like the first and choose to not
report the
income and pair their fair share of the taxes?

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I'd like to see all the border jumping criminals
fingerprinted, packed up, and dumped across the border. The
second time they come back, they spend six weeks in
solitary, being fed bread and water. And then dumped over
the border. Each further offense results in six more weeks
of solitary. I'd like to see all crimes committed by non
citizens punished with double sentences. In a Sherriff Joe
type prison camp.

I have little sympathy for people who don't respect our
nation.

Uh Huh. And how exactly do you plan to pay for the massive
infrastructure and staff increases for law enforcement that would be
needed for this mass roundup? And how to avoid accidentally rounding up
citizens (say, latino youths without drivers license or other ID) who,
because they carry no green card, would be assumed to be illegal? They
don't walk around wearing shirts that say 'wetback' on them, you know.
SW US has entire areas that may as well be northern Mexico, but the
people there are indeed US citizens. Awful hard to tell them apart
without a scorecard. US is not the only country with this problem.
Ethnic group concentrations tend to reflect historic settlement
patterns, not current borders. Illegals flock to areas where they blend in.

--
aem sends...

On Wed, 13 May 2009 21:05:41 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

You have been duped by the assumption that there is some
"number of dollars" the govt needs. I believe that govt
spends about 1.2 to 1.5 times what it takes in.

One person failing to pay taxes doesn't necessarily mean
that someone else has to pay more. It just means that the
govt has less of our money.

Which will translate into fewer services from the government.



How many times have you been audited. And the auditor says
"the contractor on the other side of town did a cash job, so
I'm adding $50 to your assessment."

On May 13, 10:17*pm, aemeijers wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I'd like to see all the border jumping criminals
fingerprinted, *packed up, and dumped across the border. The
second time they come back, they spend six weeks in
solitary, being fed bread and water. And then dumped over
the border. Each further offense results in six more weeks
of solitary. I'd like to see all crimes committed by non
citizens punished with double sentences. In a Sherriff Joe
type prison camp.

I have little sympathy for people who don't respect our
nation.

Uh Huh. And how exactly do you plan to pay for the massive
infrastructure and staff increases for law enforcement that would be
needed for this mass roundup?

Funny how money is available for everything else. We just passed
back to back $800Bil spending packages, without time for anyone to
even read them. Obama is proposing running deficits of $1Tril a year
for the next decade. So, we can pay for enforcing immigration laws
the same irresponsible way as everything else in this new era.

For the latest example of total fiscal irresponsibility, the govt is
spending $60 mil to build a memorial park in the middle of the corn
field in PA where the United 911 flight crashed. And they are using
eminent domain to take the farm property needed. I think any
reasonable person should see this for what it is. The country is deep
in debt, yet the govt is spending without any limits. There is no
reason you couldn't build a small but nice memorial for a couple
million tops. And who exactly do they think is going to go there to
see it in that area of PA?




And how to avoid accidentally rounding up
citizens (say, latino youths without drivers license or other ID) who,
because they carry no green card, would be assumed to be illegal?

I guess the same way we sort out everyone else suspected of being a
criminal.



They
don't walk around wearing shirts that say 'wetback' on them, you know.
SW US has entire areas that may as well be northern Mexico, but the
people there are indeed US citizens. Awful hard to tell them apart
without a scorecard.

How about using a birth certificate? Is that so hard?


US is not the only country with this problem.
Ethnic group concentrations tend to reflect historic settlement
patterns, not current borders. *Illegals flock to areas where they blend in.

And at this point, that would be pretty much the entire USA. They
don't have to worry about fitting in, because no one is enforcing the
immigration laws. And in most places, it's considered politically
incorrect to even attempt to do anything about it.





--
aem sends...

On May 14, 7:53*am, wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 21:05:41 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
You have been duped by the assumption that there is some
"number of dollars" the govt needs. I believe that govt
spends about 1.2 to 1.5 times what it takes in.

One person failing to pay taxes doesn't necessarily mean
that someone else has to pay more. It just means that the
govt has less of our money.

* * * * Which will translate into fewer services from the government.



Yep, which is a good thing. I want the govt to do less, not more.
Congress has an approval rating of what? 22% or so? Why anyone
would want a bunch of proven incompetents and crooks to be putting in
place more govt programs is beyond me.

And I agree with Stormin. A lot of people are under the mistaken
assumption that govt just takes what it needs to fund spending. In
reality, they are spending irresponsibly, without any regard to how
much money is available. I used to think that ultimately they had
enough responsibility to realize that they couldn't run increasing
deficits beyond a certain point. But that has now gone out the
window. UItimately, market forces will prevail and end the spending
orgy. But we have a few more years and then when it does happen, it
isn't going to be pretty. We're on the path to ruin followed by the
likes of many third world countries.







How many times have you been audited. And the auditor says
"the contractor on the other side of town did a cash job, so
I'm adding $50 to your assessment."

wrote:


One person failing to pay taxes doesn't necessarily mean
that someone else has to pay more. It just means that the
govt has less of our money.

Which will translate into fewer services from the government.


And which services need be done by the government?

* Police? - There are many more security guards than cops.
* Firefighters? - 85% of the nation's firefighters are volunteers.
* Military? - Many wars have been fought by mercenaries.

I could go on, but there are two points:

1. Many "services" provided by the government could be more readily provided
by community effort.
2. Inasmuch as no government programs actually expire, the logical
conclusion is that government will eventually do everything.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


1. Many "services" provided by the government could be more readily provided
by community effort.
2. Inasmuch as no government programs actually expire, the logical
conclusion is that government will eventually do everything.

I tend toward agreement with PJ__
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."

-P.J. O'Rourke

--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."

--PJ O'Rourke

Actually, that would be wonderful. Lets immediately cut out
all funding for education (should be handled on the state
level). Next, we phase out Medicare and Medicaid, which
aren't powers given by the Constitution. That can be done by
private insurers. We'll phase out social security by not
offering it to younger members of society. They can invest
the same money in stocks, and mutual funds.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 May 2009 21:05:41 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:


One person failing to pay taxes doesn't necessarily mean
that someone else has to pay more. It just means that the
govt has less of our money.

Which will translate into fewer services from the
government.

Ah, the Obama plan!

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

2. Inasmuch as no government programs actually expire, the
logical
conclusion is that government will eventually do everything.

We'll use the money that we save, by not spending buckets of
money on illegals. Any idea how much rent, food, cable
television, spending money, cigarettes, beer, and medical
that our government gives to illegals, now? I sure don't
know the number. But, that money could be used for
enforcement.

Tell illegals from criminals by same method we tell crooks
from innocent. Where I live in NYS, I have to carry a
drivers license while driving. People will rapidly figure
out that they need to carry ID.

Lets start the program with everyone who is presently in
custody, in jails or prisons. Check the immigration status.
Deport them (if not citizens) at the end of their jail
sentence.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"aemeijers" wrote in message
...

Uh Huh. And how exactly do you plan to pay for the massive
infrastructure and staff increases for law enforcement that
would be
needed for this mass roundup? And how to avoid accidentally
rounding up
citizens (say, latino youths without drivers license or
other ID) who,
because they carry no green card, would be assumed to be
illegal? They
don't walk around wearing shirts that say 'wetback' on them,
you know.
SW US has entire areas that may as well be northern Mexico,
but the
people there are indeed US citizens. Awful hard to tell them
apart
without a scorecard. US is not the only country with this
problem.
Ethnic group concentrations tend to reflect historic
settlement
patterns, not current borders. Illegals flock to areas
where they blend in.

--
aem sends...

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

We'll use the money that we save, by not spending buckets of
money on illegals. Any idea how much rent, food, cable
television, spending money, cigarettes, beer, and medical
that our government gives to illegals, now? I sure don't
know the number. But, that money could be used for
enforcement.

Tell illegals from criminals by same method we tell crooks
from innocent. Where I live in NYS, I have to carry a
drivers license while driving. People will rapidly figure
out that they need to carry ID.

Lets start the program with everyone who is presently in
custody, in jails or prisons. Check the immigration status.
Deport them (if not citizens) at the end of their jail
sentence.


Reminds me of the old Cheech take off on the Springsteen song:
I was born in East LA.

http://www.driko.org/lyrics/bornineastla.txt

--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."

--PJ O'Rourke

On May 13, 9:00*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
I'd like to see all the border jumping criminals
fingerprinted, *packed up, and dumped across the border. The
second time they come back, they spend six weeks in
solitary, being fed bread and water. And then dumped over
the border. Each further offense results in six more weeks
of solitary. I'd like to see all crimes committed by non
citizens punished with double sentences. In a Sherriff Joe
type prison camp.

I have little sympathy for people who don't respect our
nation.

So in other words, you think the Indians should have locked up and/or
killed Joseph Smith Jr and the rest of the Mormons when they invaded
Indian territory is 1838 because they were over-running the area and
didn't respect the Indian nation or culture?

I view the world through the eyes of a Catholic. I assume you view it
as a Mormon. So what does your church teach about acceptance,
charity, loving thy neighbor? What is more important, God's Law or
civil law?

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's; but there are certain things that are
NOT Caesar's.

It is an interesting schism that separates Catholics from Protestants
-- salvation through acts or salvation through grace.


--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

...
* * Just out of personal curiosity (real honest question).
How do you
feel about illegal aliens being used by contractors?

On May 14, 8:55*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
We'll use the money that we save, by not spending buckets of
money on illegals. Any idea how much rent, food, cable
television, spending money, cigarettes, beer, and medical
that our government gives to illegals, now? I sure don't
know the number. But, that money could be used for
enforcement.

Tell illegals from criminals by same method we tell crooks
from innocent. Where I live in NYS, I have to carry a
drivers license while driving. People will rapidly figure
out that they need to carry ID.

Just tattoo ID numbers on their forearms and put yellow stars on their
clothing.

Being a Morman and therefore a minority religion, ne thing to thing
about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...




Lets start the program with everyone who is presently in
custody, in jails or prisons. Check the immigration status.
Deport them (if not citizens) at the end of their jail
sentence.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"aemeijers" wrote in message

...

Uh Huh. And how exactly do you plan to pay for the massive
infrastructure and staff increases for law enforcement that
would be
needed for this mass roundup? And how to avoid accidentally
rounding up
citizens (say, latino youths without drivers license or
other ID) who,
because they carry no green card, would be assumed to be
illegal? They
don't walk around wearing shirts that say 'wetback' on them,
you know.
SW US has entire areas that may as well be northern Mexico,
but the
people there are indeed US citizens. Awful hard to tell them
apart
without a scorecard. US is not the only country with this
problem.
Ethnic group concentrations tend to reflect historic
settlement
patterns, not current borders. *Illegals flock to areas
where they blend in.

--
aem sends...

Pat wrote in news:bdf73f40-a54c-4339-
:

On May 14, 8:55*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
We'll use the money that we save, by not spending buckets of
money on illegals. Any idea how much rent, food, cable
television, spending money, cigarettes, beer, and medical
that our government gives to illegals, now? I sure don't
know the number. But, that money could be used for
enforcement.

Tell illegals from criminals by same method we tell crooks
from innocent. Where I live in NYS, I have to carry a
drivers license while driving. People will rapidly figure
out that they need to carry ID.

Just tattoo ID numbers on their forearms and put yellow stars on their
clothing.

Being a Morman and therefore a minority religion, ne thing to thing
about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...


Yes indeed ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

So in other words, you think the Indians should have locked
up and/or
killed Joseph Smith Jr and the rest of the Mormons when they
invaded
Indian territory is 1838 because they were over-running the
area and
didn't respect the Indian nation or culture?

CY: I think you're being absurd. And combattive.

I view the world through the eyes of a Catholic. I assume
you view it
as a Mormon.

CY: Good assumption.

So what does your church teach about acceptance,
charity, loving thy neighbor? What is more important, God's
Law or
civil law?

CY: Having stated my position, I'm not here to debate.

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's; but there are certain
things that are
NOT Caesar's.

It is an interesting schism that separates Catholics from
Protestants
-- salvation through acts or salvation through grace.

CY: And the Mormon view. Saved by grace, exalted by works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Thank you for proving my point. You're not discussing.
You're slamming.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Pat" wrote in message
...

Just tattoo ID numbers on their forearms and put yellow
stars on their
clothing.

Being a Morman and therefore a minority religion, ne thing
to thing
about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

On May 15, 10:23*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
* *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Thank you for proving my point. You're not discussing.
You're slamming.

No, I am pointing out that extremism leads to extremism.

I also pointing out that there are no Mormon or Mexicans or
Catholics. There are only people. There is no reason to segregate
them. Segregation and ghettos always leads to bad things. And if
that happens, and your group happens to lose power, YOU could be next
on the chopping block. You should protect immigrants as a manner of
protecting yourself, your family and your culture.


--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"Pat" wrote in message

...

Just tattoo ID numbers on their forearms and put yellow
stars on their
clothing.

Being a Morman and therefore a minority religion, ne thing
to thing
about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

On May 15, 10:20*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
So in other words, you think the Indians should have locked
up and/or
killed Joseph Smith Jr and the rest of the Mormons when they
invaded
Indian territory is 1838 because they were over-running the
area and
didn't respect the Indian nation or culture?

CY: I think you're being absurd. And combattive.

I view the world through the eyes of a Catholic. *I assume
you view it
as a Mormon.

CY: Good assumption.

So what does your church teach about acceptance,
charity, loving thy neighbor? *What is more important, God's
Law or
civil law?

CY: Having stated my position, I'm not here to debate.

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's; but there are certain
things that are
NOT Caesar's.

It is an interesting schism that separates Catholics from
Protestants
-- salvation through acts or salvation through grace.

CY: And the Mormon view. Saved by grace, exalted by works.

Saved by grace, exalted by works seems like a rational (as rational as
religion goes) and good set of values and beliefs. So turn the other
cheek, accept the leaper, give alms to the poor immigrants.

Hatred and disdain are bad for your karma.

On May 15, 10:20*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
So in other words, you think the Indians should have locked
up and/or
killed Joseph Smith Jr and the rest of the Mormons when they
invaded
Indian territory is 1838 because they were over-running the
area and
didn't respect the Indian nation or culture?

CY: I think you're being absurd. And combattive.

I view the world through the eyes of a Catholic. *I assume
you view it
as a Mormon.

CY: Good assumption.

So what does your church teach about acceptance,
charity, loving thy neighbor? *What is more important, God's
Law or
civil law?

CY: Having stated my position, I'm not here to debate.

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's; but there are certain
things that are
NOT Caesar's.

It is an interesting schism that separates Catholics from
Protestants
-- salvation through acts or salvation through grace.

CY: And the Mormon view. Saved by grace, exalted by works.



What does any of this have to do with simply enforcing the existing US
immigration laws? Only a true kook would equate enforcing perfectly
reasonable immigration laws, similar to what virtually every other
country has on the books, to Nazi Germany. . I find it offensive,
even anti-semitic as it trivializes the holocaust. Very strange for
someone who claims to be so compassionate. But it does make it easy
to dismiss your sick arguments as total nonsense.

If you don't want any immigration laws, why shouldn't some fringe
group that thinks like you just charter 747's and start bringing
people over by the millions from Haiti, Somalia, India, and every
other third world country?

On May 15, 9:39*am, Pat wrote:
On May 15, 10:23*am, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
* *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Thank you for proving my point. You're not discussing.
You're slamming.

No, I am pointing out that extremism leads to extremism.

I also pointing out that there are no Mormon or Mexicans or
Catholics. *There are only people. *There is no reason to segregate
them. *Segregation and ghettos always leads to bad things. *And if
that happens, and your group happens to lose power, YOU could be next
on the chopping block. *You should protect immigrants as a manner of
protecting yourself, your family and your culture.





--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"Pat" wrote in message

....

Just tattoo ID numbers on their forearms and put yellow
stars on their
clothing.

Being a Morman and therefore a minority religion, ne thing
to thing
about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is substantial difference between protecting immigrants and
allowing illegal immigrants to become a dominat force in our society.
I totally support legal immigration and want to see the process of
legal immigration encouraged and protected. What we are seeing right
now though is a backlash against illegal immigration that actually
threatens those immigrants who have come hear legally. This backlash
will only grow stronger if we don't act to stop the unrestrained
illegal immigration.

On May 15, 10:54*am, wrote:
On May 15, 10:20*am, "Stormin Mormon"



wrote:
So in other words, you think the Indians should have locked
up and/or
killed Joseph Smith Jr and the rest of the Mormons when they
invaded
Indian territory is 1838 because they were over-running the
area and
didn't respect the Indian nation or culture?

CY: I think you're being absurd. And combattive.

I view the world through the eyes of a Catholic. *I assume
you view it
as a Mormon.

CY: Good assumption.

So what does your church teach about acceptance,
charity, loving thy neighbor? *What is more important, God's
Law or
civil law?

CY: Having stated my position, I'm not here to debate.

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's; but there are certain
things that are
NOT Caesar's.

It is an interesting schism that separates Catholics from
Protestants
-- salvation through acts or salvation through grace.

CY: And the Mormon view. Saved by grace, exalted by works.

What does any of this have to do with simply enforcing the existing US
immigration laws? * *Only a true kook would equate enforcing perfectly
reasonable immigration laws, similar to what virtually every other
country has on the books, to Nazi Germany. . * I find it offensive,
even anti-semitic as it trivializes the holocaust. *Very strange for
someone who claims to be so compassionate. * *But it does make it easy
to dismiss your sick arguments as total nonsense.

If you don't want any immigration laws, why shouldn't some fringe
group that thinks like you just charter 747's and start bringing
people over by the millions from Haiti, Somalia, India, and every
other third world country?

You shouldn't be hateful. You should lock them up and criminalize an
economic situation. You should be thankful that you were lucky and
born into good economic conditions.

On May 14, 7:22*am, wrote:
On May 13, 10:17*pm, aemeijers wrote:





Stormin Mormon wrote:
I'd like to see all the border jumping criminals
fingerprinted, *packed up, and dumped across the border. The
second time they come back, they spend six weeks in
solitary, being fed bread and water. And then dumped over
the border. Each further offense results in six more weeks
of solitary. I'd like to see all crimes committed by non
citizens punished with double sentences. In a Sherriff Joe
type prison camp.

I have little sympathy for people who don't respect our
nation.

Uh Huh. And how exactly do you plan to pay for the massive
infrastructure and staff increases for law enforcement that would be
needed for this mass roundup?

Funny how money is available for everything else. * We just passed
back to back $800Bil spending packages, without time for anyone to
even read them. * Obama is proposing running deficits of $1Tril a year
for the next decade. * So, we can pay for enforcing immigration laws
the same irresponsible way as everything else in this new era.

For the latest example of total fiscal irresponsibility, the govt is
spending $60 mil to build a memorial park in the middle of the corn
field in PA where the United 911 flight crashed. * *And they are using
eminent domain to take the farm property needed. *I think any
reasonable person should see this for what it is. *The country is deep
in debt, yet the govt is spending without any limits. * There is no
reason you couldn't build a small but nice memorial for a couple
million tops. * And who exactly do they think is going to go there to
see it in that area of PA?

And how to avoid accidentally rounding up
citizens (say, latino youths without drivers license or other ID) who,
because they carry no green card, would be assumed to be illegal?

I guess the same way we sort out everyone else suspected of being a
criminal.

They
don't walk around wearing shirts that say 'wetback' on them, you know.
SW US has entire areas that may as well be northern Mexico, but the
people there are indeed US citizens. Awful hard to tell them apart
without a scorecard.

How about using a birth certificate? * Is that so hard?

US is not the only country with this problem.
Ethnic group concentrations tend to reflect historic settlement
patterns, not current borders. *Illegals flock to areas where they blend in.

And at this point, that would be pretty much the entire USA. *They
don't have to worry about fitting in, because no one is enforcing the
immigration laws. * And in most places, it's considered politically
incorrect to even attempt to do anything about it.





--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The first 700 billion was for NY state, as all the companies it
benefited are HQ'ed there. The rest of the country was shafted on the
Sept. financial bailouts. Anyone who thinks NY state itself didn't
benefit heavily on that, (to the detriment of the rest of the states),
just fell off a turnip truck. But you'll never hear that on the news
as the news corps are also HQ'ed in NY. The payments were to keep
financial workers and buildings still humming in NY state, as other
corporations elsewhere in the country got duped. Madoff also lived in
NY I see a contributer that the other states had to pay for. NY state
really has the financial purse strings, (and lobbying clout), of the
nation, not so much DC.